why do people use tape???

M

mr. produca

New member
a whole lot of studios still use tape recorders, i was thinking about purchasing a 2-track or 8-track recorder for my soon to be studio.is this a sensible investment? why do studios use this when recording if its gonna end up on cd anyway????your input please......
 
studios today that have them have them mainly because they sound better than digital. they give a warmer, typically more pleasing sound because of tape saturation. if the audio is transfered to digital using high-quality converters, then this sound that can only be created with tape remains. on top of that, reel to reel recorders are more fun to record with in my opinion.
 
one more thing.....do you have to get noise reduction with tape,all the big guys seem to have it,but its really expensive....is this a neccesity??
 
Noise redux helps a lot. Tape is noisier than digital recording (in most circumstances) and the noise builds up with each track. For example, and 8 track tape will have 8 tracks of the same noise. If you start bouncing those tracks to get more than 8, the noise builds up even more.

All that said, you *really* have to know what you are doing to get tape to sound better than digital. If you're just getting started I'd go with an inexpensive digital system to get the basics down before locking yourself into an 8-track tape studio.

If you want to jump right in, though, go ahead!! You probably won't regret it if you are serious about understanding the finer arts of recording. I'd recommend starting with a 2-track mixdown deck, though. Get whatever system you want for recording and mixing and mix down to the analog 2-track. That's the least expensive way to start learning about how tape works (tape compression, tape speeds, the different types, calibrating and maintaining the machine, etc.)

If I make my guess right, by your BBS name, you are starting a hip hop production studio. If so, recognize that few of your clients are likely to appreciate the extra work you are putting into getting that tape deck working properly. If anything, they're going to wonder why you are using that old thing instead of that fancy pro tools thing-a-ma-jig they've been hearing so much about. And they're going to wonder why you are charging them so much more the tape. $40?! Just for the tape?!

Have fun,
Chris
 
Consider also that the big studios use very nice (read very expensive) 2" 24 tracks in general. The machines that they are using spec much nicer than most all of your 8 track's and many of the 16 tracks. This way they get the benefits of tape without a lot of the drawbacks that comes with tape compared to digital (speaking in terms of sound quality and not logistics and features). I don't want you to be discouraged about getting a tape machine, but just to be aware. Personally, I think if you were to have just an 8 track setup (analog or digital), I think tapoe is easier to get a more pleasing sound.
 
mr. produca, if you ever get a chance, watch the Tom Dawd video. If you have the Sundance channel you can see it for free. Some places my still use tape but, studios started using digital in the 80's. The problem was, back then it was way to expensive for the home recordest. That has all changed now. I think you would really be wasting your money going to a tape machine. Just my opinion but, I know guys still using 8 tracks and there very disappointed when they hear my recordings. As a matter of fact, I have a band right now that wants to come over an have me record them, they have always recorded on a 8 track tape machine. Why....would you want to go back in time? Tape would take you back to the 70's. Think about it.......
 
Kasey said:
studios today that have them have them mainly because they sound better than digital.
Click to expand...

That's debatable!

Analog is prone to hiss, noise, inaccurate low end response, and a diminished high end response--even on the best machines. Analog also requires more maintenance and offers less "bang for the buck" for the home recordist. Analog is also much more difficult to edit than digital. Tape saturation, when properly utilized, can make or break certain types of sounds (notably drums) but reasonable facsimiles now exist for digital systems.

Digital offers a more accurate frequency response, however it is extremely dependent upon the quality of the analog-to-digital converters used, as well as rigourous adherence to a few simple rules (like don't clip the signal). Digital recording also offers fine-tuned editing abilities as well as zero noise (if the engineer records correctly). Digital recording requires some knowledge of computer technology but offers an amazing "bang for the buck" if you lack a big budget.

IMHO a home recordist should start digital and decide to make the analog plunge when they know what they are fully getting into, what they gain and what they lose by using that media.
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
If I make my guess right, by your BBS name, you are starting a hip hop production studio. If so, recognize that few of your clients are likely to appreciate the extra work you are putting into getting that tape deck working properly.
Click to expand...

In my experience hip hop clients want FAST FAST results only possible with a digital system. If they have recorded in the past on a digital system they may walk when they can't do seamless editing on the fly with an analog system.

Plus, many of them want to use the biggest, newest system available.

Another thing to consider--many are going to be bringing their own beat soundbeds that were 99% of the time recorded digitally in the first place... not going to get much tape benefit in those cases.

IMHO the choice should be pretty clear--digital.
 
my gripe is the most used media for music is cd (Digital right?)are the tape machines just for the effect it has on sound,cant they have a effects processor or something for that??cassettes do give a lot of hiss and vinyl isn't very portable (not as cds)
 
There are effects that emulate tape compression and other analog sounds. (shrug) Some do it better than others, all work for what they do. None *actually* sound like real tape.

-C
 
Go check out the thread "why still analog?" in the Analog Only forum. Good discussion/debate going on there. My opinion is this...I still believe in the quality of the "analog sound", whether better or not, it is better to me, and that is a matter of personal taste. I would also say it depends on the style of music and the actual song, as analog has a "flavor", much like Joe Meek products. You have to dig that sound or not to be for or against buying one. Anyway, I want that flavor and sound all the way up until I convert to 1s and 0s. I feel the analog path until that point adds more analog sound than tracking digital all the way through.
If you buy a "prosumer" unit, such as TASCAM TRS-8, MSSR-16, or the comparable Foxtex models, most have a Dolby or DBX noise reduction in the unit. :)
 
mr. produca said:
a whole lot of studios still use tape recorders, i was thinking about purchasing a 2-track or 8-track recorder for my soon to be studio.is this a sensible investment? why do studios use this when recording if its gonna end up on cd anyway????your input please......
Click to expand...

It does depend on the genre of music. Analog is preferred by many in the rock, country and gospel scenes. Much, but not all Rap and hip-hop will render similar results with analog or digital. Digital wins in the speed and convenience department. But it is my opinion that analog is in every way sonically superior to any existing digital format, except for noise floor. But noise reduction like Dolby or dbx solved the tape hiss problem long ago.

The negative properties of digital increase when the whole process starts and ends in digital. This is why many professionals track and/or master in analog. It makes a difference even if the final product is a CD.

One of the more common practices is to master to a 2-track analog reel-to-reel to “warm up” a digital mix before it goes to CD. Even for those who track in digital, an investment in a modest 2-track like a Tascam 22-2, 32, Fostex E-2, or Otari MX5050 can transform a mix from something harsh and sterile to something more pleasing to the ear. All things being equal it can really make a piece of music stand out from the crowd. Consider the following advice from George Graves in Professional Sound Magazine:

"If you want my advice, with all the available digital technology you still can't beat the sound of a good analog mixdown.... The effect on your sound can be dramatic. With an analog mixdown, you have a much wider, deeper sound with greater stereo imaging. An analog mixdown has a texture that digital cannot produce. And, simply put, to my ears it sounds better ... that's it. No more explanation needed."
--George Graves, Chief Engineer - Lacquer Channel Mastering, Toronto

The above quote is from a handful of quotes I posted a few months ago in the Analog Only forum. Members viewing this thread may also find those enlightening. See the following link.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1397276&postcount=1

Best of luck in your pursuit of sonic excellence,

-Tim
 
Last edited:
For what its worth, I track, edit and automate in Pro Tools, even using some plugins- but I mix on an analog console- a Soundtracs Solo MIDI (with MIDI automatable mutes) with really nice EQ's and a good, fat sound.

Why? Aside from that my outboard revebs sound better than most of my plugins, the stereo image of the analog mix is just wider. Thick, fat, wide and pleaseing. Just from being mixed on the board. And the board, for all its great sound, doesn't use ANY cpu! :)

Don't ask me why. It just is that way to my ears. And to my clients more often then not. Running a bass track through a MaxxBass and a digital compressor (even a really good one!) doesn't make the guy sitting on the couch light up the same way that putting it through a dbx 166a and turning up the low shelf on the board does.

So that adds another issue to this discussion: analog is more than just tape. Its a whole process of creating the music, in its technical aspects at least. Most pro studios (that I know of) still mix analog no matter what medium they are recording to.

Take care,
Chris
 
Cloneboy Studio said:
That's debatable!
IMHO a home recordist should start digital and decide to make the analog plunge when they know what they are fully getting into, what they gain and what they lose by using that media.
Click to expand...

I second that. I started long ago on a 4-track then an 8-track reel. Now we have a 10 track HD system and haven't looked back. If you know what your doing, you can go a long way with any system. If I was building a new system from scratch at this point, I'de go with a HD rig, some descent software and spend the rest on mics. Imagine how far you could go with the money you'd otherwise spend on an analog reel/board set up.

Down the road maybe you could pick up a reel for tracking and then dumping it to digital but to be honest, for our stuff (mainly acoustic jazz) it's never been worth the trouble.
 
Slappo said:
I second that. I started long ago on a 4-track then an 8-track reel. Now we have a 10 track HD system and haven't looked back. If you know what your doing, you can go a long way with any system. If I was building a new system from scratch at this point, I'de go with a HD rig, some descent software and spend the rest on mics. Imagine how far you could go with the money you'd otherwise spend on an analog reel/board set up.

Down the road maybe you could pick up a reel for tracking and then dumping it to digital but to be honest, for our stuff (mainly acoustic jazz) it's never been worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

Yeah, analog stuff is SO expensive right now, you will surely safe $$$ by going digital. You would think that digital is going out of style and analog is the new kid on the block, looking at nowadays prices. Gee whiz, Wally! Go get yourself a box, some freeware, and work on learning Microsoft or MacIntosh (don't know that Linux, Oxygen, or whatever the others are offer music-based OSs) operating systems if you care. A computer guru is truly a Music Engineer, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise :p
 
Last edited:
in the middle

these are some strong pionts.it is very true,for a decent analogue setup you would have to shovel a sh!!!t load of money into it,those big, quality tape machines ive seen for $25000 :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: sorry bout that,plus matainance is a pain in the arse! :mad: but the sound!ooooh that qaulity sound that cant be duplicated!!!
and on the other hand you got digital that is fast and reliable,but then some complain the sound is sterile and cold.both good and bad points.seems imposible to pick one over the other.i guess im just repeating what so many others said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top